IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI DATE: 19.02.2026 Between :

Mohd. Maqbool Ahmed … Petitioner AND State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, and three others.

… Respondents

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…to pass an order or orders or Writ or more particularly one in nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 4 herein in not providing police aid for implementation of injunction order granted in favour of the Petitioner in I.A. No.525 of 2019 in O.S.No. 167 of 2019, the Hon’ble I Additional Junior Civil Judge Cum XV Additional Metropolitan Judge, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar restraining the Respondent No.4 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner property i.e., the Plot bearing Nos. 55, 57, 58, 59, 60 and 61 admeasuring 1400 sq.yds equivalent 1170.57 sq. meters covered by Sy.No.126 situated at Kismathpur Village and G.P., Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, despite submitting Complaints dated 23.09.2019 and 7.12.2019 not registered the crime upon the Respondent No.4, as arbitrary, illegal and unjustified besides violating the Petitioner’s rights guaranteed under Articles 14,21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent No. 4 to provide police protection/aid for implementation of injunction order granted in favour of the Petitioner in I.A. No.525 of 2019 in O.S.No. 167 of 2019, the Honourable I Additional Junior Civil Judge Cum XV Additional Metropolitan Judge, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar by acting upon the Petitioner Complaints dated 23.09.2019 and

7.12.2019 as per law and to pass such other order or orders…”

2. I have heard Mr. Bhavani Sankar N, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R. Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Akshat Sanghi, learned counsel, representing Mr. Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents, particularly the police authorities, to provide police aid for the implementation of the interim injunction order granted in favour of the petitioner in I.A. No. 525 of 2019 in O.S. No. 167 of 2019 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Rajendranagar.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the petitioner is seeking implementation of an interim injunction order passed by the Civil Court. In the absence of any specific direction from the Court concerned to provide police protection, the request of the petitioner has not been acted upon by the police authorities. It is further contended that, if aggrieved, the petitioner ought to have approached the Civil Court concerned seeking appropriate directions. Accordingly, he prays for passing appropriate orders.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 submits that the allegations made against respondent No. 4 are unfounded. It is further contended that any request for implementation of the injunction order must be made before the Civil Court concerned, either by way of an appropriate application or through execution proceedings. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. I have perused the material available on record.

7. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents/police authorities have failed to act upon his representation seeking police protection for implementation of the interlocutory injunction order granted in his favour by the Civil Court. The pleadings indicate that the petitioner is essentially seeking a remedy against respondent No. 4, who is defendant No. 2 in the suit proceedings. It is evident from the record that the peti